DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 10/14/2025 has been considered.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-25 have NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, 18-22 are amended.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 are canceled.
Claim(s) 23-25 are added.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-25 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more and thus do not satisfy the criteria for subject matter eligibility.
Step 1
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 fall(s) in two of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Yes
receiving,
determining,
determining, for at least some identifiers from the list of global identifiers and each identifier of which is for a corresponding candidate data object, a corresponding local identifier for the candidate data object in the local database that matches a local identifier in the mapping of global identifiers
determining, using the local identifiers that were mapped to corresponding global identifiers from the list of global identifiers and data
selecting, as the subset of data objects and from a plurality of local identifiers maintained
retrieving, from the subset of data objects
causing presentation of information about the recommended data object.
The limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 recite concepts of data recommendation, which falls into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. More specifically, the claim language recites concepts that receives data (A), determine data by comparing data (B, B1, B2), selects data (B3), retrieve data (B4), presents the selected data (B5), and thus are considered commercial practice known in the know retail business.
Thus, claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-25 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: No
Besides the abstract idea, claims 1, 8, 15 recite the additional elements:
Claim 1, 8, 15: “a local system and a central system that is remote from the local system”, “local database”;
Claim 8: “One or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:”;
Claim 15: “A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising”
The claimed additional elements that perform limitation A is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than merely data gathering data, and thus are considered nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional elements that perform limitations B, B1, B2, B3 are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered data comparison – local id(s) with global id(s), determination – item(s) on stock, selection – item(s) on stock without the recitation of technological improvement, and thus are considered generality linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and/or field of use; the additional elements that perform limitation B4 is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered data retrieved nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the additional elements that perform limitation B5 is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; When view in combination, the additional elements merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generality links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and claim(s) 1, 8, 15 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-25 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
The additional elements listed above on Step 2A (Prong 2) when considered both individually and in combination amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components; As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amount to no more than data that is gathered, comparing, selected, transmitted, and thus are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the same analysis applies here in Step 2B. Therefore, the computer components are constructed as generic computer components that performs well-understood, routine, conventional activities]’ previously known in the industry.
In addition, the court found that using a machine on its ordinary capacity, in other words, invoking a machine merely as a tool to perform an existing process do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because it is simply applying the abstract idea in a computer such as the abstracted idea listed above applied in the generic computer component(s) also listed above.
Further, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), computer functions recognized by the court as well-understood, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”;
Further, see MPEP 2106.05(6), the additional elements recognized by the courts that did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea: in OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the court determined that the additional steps to "test prices and collect data based on the customer reactions" did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization, because the steps were well-understood, routine, conventional data-gathering activities. 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and thus, no indication that the claims include inventive concept.
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, 17-25 do not add “significantly more” to the eligibility of claims 1, 8, 15 and recite a more complex abstraction executed on a generic computer using well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Even when considered as an ordered combination, these dependent claims do not add significantly more than when considered individually.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-25 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims are allowed over the prior art.
Gandhi et al. (US 20080082427 A1, hereinafter Gandhi) and Mantripragada et al. (US 7127458 B1, hereinafter Mantripragada) are the closest prior art of the record.
Gandhi discloses a dealer business system 118 where Dealer 105 uses to download a listing of products and parts from server database 155, including part number, serial number, and product model, see par. 47-49. The system 118 obtains part attributes for parts using part identifiers number or description, more specifically, by matching the part identifiers downloaded from the database 150 with the part identifiers found on the database 115, see par.49. The system 118 generates reports including inventory report to obtain a quantity of one or more parts that are available in the inventory warehouse 101, including the quantity for the part selected par. 57-58.
Gandhi discloses the model number and part numbers, and how the part numbers are use for selection of the attributes; however, it does not explicitly disclose “using a mapping, maintained by the local system, of global identifiers for the central system to local identifiers for the local database”;
After an update search, Mantripragada cures the deficiency by disclosing the match manufacturer name, part number, and/or item number of Bom 50 with data 52 using the MPN template locally stored on the system 10 see Figure 1 and 7:1-30, 4:1-55, 3:25-51, 9:39-57;
However, neither Mantripragada nor Gandhi teach: “wherein the selected data objects comprise a proper subset of the plurality of data objects and excludes items that are not in stock”
Therefore, the italic limitations in combination with other limitations clearly claimed in the independent claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 are novel and unobvious.
According claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-25 are allowable over the prior art, however, a rejection under the 35 USC 101 should be overcome in order to have the current application allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/14/2025 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
In addition, regarding 35 USC 101 the applicant argues reduced networking communication and faster access to data are considered improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, see Remarks page 10-11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Selecting data from a list of recommended data is not considered an improvement to the functioning, instead, it is considered nothing more than data request and retrieval without any recitation of an improvement. Further, the same applies for the faster access to some data, having data being accessed locally faster without the recitation of a improvement is not eligible.
Applicant argues Enfish, see remarks page 11, paragraph 6-7. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Enfish improvement is directed to a specific self-referential data table that improves how computers store and retrieve data, which is not the case in the current application. There is no improvement on how data are store in a database, instead, the claims are direct to determine data, and retrieve data claimed at a high level of generality.
Applicant argues Desjardins, see remarks page 12, 1 and second paragraph. Examiner respectfully disagrees. On Desjardins, there is a clear improvement in the machine learning algorithms, where the model can effectively learn new tasks in succession whilst, which helps protect the knowledge of the previous tasks, this is not the case, the current applicant are determining data and retrieving data.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained, see complete rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA DELIGI whose telephone number is (571)272-0503. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 07:30AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached on (571) 272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VANESSA DELIGI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627